Fisheries committee  They continue to be held.

Fisheries committee  They would be treated in the same way they were prior to the decision.

Fisheries committee  Again, if that is the logic, what's difficult to follow is why the price continued to decline from 2001 to 2005, when the total landings were actually declining or stable, yet the price still declined. The difficulty is that the market conditions, the Japanese market and so forth, seemed to suggest that other things are controlling or explaining the reasons for the price decline.

Fisheries committee  The quota per licence prior to the decision was 16,000 pounds per licence. After the decision, the department negotiated an increased allocation for the Heltsiuk, which I described at the beginning of my presentation. The amount that we provided was still within the total allowable harvest of roe herring that had been determined by science.

Fisheries committee  Yes, that's correct. There was an increase in the catch of spawn on kelp after the decision was made.

Fisheries committee  There's a difference between the lobster fishery and the spawn-on-kelp fishery.

Fisheries committee  The lobster fishery is an effort-based fishery. So licences are issued and there are trap limitations. The spawn-on-kelp fishery is a quota-based fishery, with a quota per licence. So there was no reduction in the quotas after the decision. Each licence holder before the Supreme Court decision had 16,000 pounds per licence; each licence holder after the decision still had 16,000 pounds per licence.

Fisheries committee  It would show an increase for a couple of years based on the allocation provided to the Heiltsuk. That would be roughly somewhere in the order of 25% of the total production in B.C. At the same time, you'd have to factor in the global production, which would include, typically, the Alaska production, which would mask that small increase in B.C., and then take into consideration the other market forces I've mentioned.

Fisheries committee  There certainly has been in the past. There have been black markets. For the members, what this is referring to is we have spawn on kelp being harvested illegally and then attempts to put that product into the legal market. We've definitely had instances of attempts to do that and product entering into the black market in the past.

Fisheries committee  In a couple of different ways. Typically, during the spawn-on-kelp season, while the kelp is in the ponds, the herring are spawning, and so forth, we will do surveys in various locations where the potential to remove the product is possible. In other words, the herring are there, the kelp are present.

Fisheries committee  I can't say for sure. In the past, where we had evidence of black market product, that was when the price was very high. It was quite attractive to people to go out and take the risk of being caught, because when you're potentially making $30 or $40 a kilogram, the payoff can be quite high.

Fisheries committee  I forget. You have a fee. There's a fixed fee for all the licence holders.

Fisheries committee  I can provide that to the committee. I think I know what it is, but I don't want to say, because I'm not sure I'm right. But it's a fixed fee, and you would pay that.

Fisheries committee  I think what the individuals are requesting is this. When the decision of the Supreme Court came down in the case of the Heiltsuk, and then the department increased the allocation of the Heiltsuk over the period I've described, those individuals asked the department to compensate them for increased first nations access.

Fisheries committee  That's correct--16,000 pounds. Where other allocations have to be reduced to increase first nations' allocations, then compensation is provided for; where that is not the case, then it is not. In this instance, no reductions in spawn-on-kelp quotas were applied.